dale

The recent decision by the Inner West Local Planning Panel to reject a proposed synthetic turf sports field on the waterfront at Callan Park represents a significant development in the ongoing debate about artificial playing surfaces in Australia.

While the panel approved a separate synthetic field proposal at the higher-ground Balmain Road site, it rejected the Waterfront Drive proposal overlooking Iron Cove, citing concerns about flood-related risks and the potential movement of pollutants into surrounding waterways during flood events.

Why the Decision Matters

For many years, synthetic turf has been promoted as a solution to increasing demand for sporting fields. Councils and sporting organisations have often pointed to higher playing capacity and reduced weather-related closures as key benefits.

However, the Callan Park decision demonstrates that environmental risks are now becoming a central consideration in planning decisions.

The proposal attracted strong opposition from community groups, environmental organisations, heritage advocates and local residents. Concerns included:

• Potential microplastic pollution entering Sydney Harbour and local waterways.
• The presence of PFAS (“forever chemicals”), heavy metals and other contaminants associated with some synthetic turf systems.
• Increased pollution risks during flood events.
• Loss of natural green space and biodiversity.
• Impacts on the heritage character of Callan Park.
• Reduced opportunities for informal community recreation and cricket.

Microplastics and Water Pollution Under the Spotlight

One of the most influential issues raised during the assessment process was the growing body of research linking synthetic turf to microplastic pollution.

Research conducted through the Total Environment Centre’s AUSMAP project has identified synthetic grass as an emerging source of microplastics entering Australian waterways. Community groups argued that locating a synthetic field adjacent to Iron Cove created an unacceptable risk of plastic particles and other contaminants being transported into Sydney Harbour, particularly during major rainfall and flood events.The Planning Panel’s decision suggests that these concerns can no longer be dismissed as hypothetical.

Heritage Considerations Cannot Be Ignored

Callan Park is one of Sydney’s most significant heritage landscapes.

The Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) lodged a detailed submission arguing that synthetic turf would have an unacceptable impact on the historic setting of the park. The submission highlighted NSW Government guidance which acknowledges that synthetic sports fields can negatively affect heritage settings by altering the visual character, landscape values and community experience of significant places.

Importantly, AILA also challenged the assumption that synthetic turf is the only way to accommodate high sporting demand, pointing to examples of modern high-performance natural turf fields capable of supporting intensive use while maintaining environmental and heritage values.

A Broader Trend Across NSW

The Callan Park decision is not occurring in isolation.

Across NSW, councils and communities are increasingly questioning the long-term costs, environmental impacts and health implications of synthetic turf installations.

Recent debates in Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Byron Shire and other local government areas have focused on:

• PFAS contamination risks.
• Microplastic pollution.
• Urban heat impacts.
• End-of-life disposal costs.
• Stormwater management.
• Biodiversity impacts.
• Whether best-practice natural turf can achieve similar playing capacity outcomes.

The result is a growing expectation that councils must carefully evaluate natural turf and synthetic turf options using transparent, evidence-based assessment processes rather than relying solely on capacity or usage assumptions.

What This Means for Future Projects

The rejection of the Waterfront Drive proposal sends a clear message to councils, sporting organisations and planners.

Future synthetic turf proposals will increasingly need to demonstrate:

• Robust environmental risk management.
• Protection of waterways and biodiversity.
• Appropriate consideration of flood impacts.
• Transparent assessment of chemical and microplastic risks.
• Genuine comparison with best-practice natural turf alternatives.
• Protection of heritage and community values where relevant.

For communities around Australia, the Callan Park decision highlights the importance of independent assessment and evidence-based decision-making when considering the future of public sporting fields.

The debate is no longer simply about how many hours a field can be used. Increasingly, it is about balancing sporting needs with environmental protection, public health, heritage conservation and long-term community outcomes.

The Planning Panel’s decision suggests that those broader considerations are becoming impossible to ignore.

As concern grows around PFAS contamination across Australia, communities are increasingly being asked to accept assurances from synthetic turf manufacturers that their products are “PFAS-free” or contain “no detectable PFAS”.

But should these claims simply be taken at face value?

The answer is no.

The scientific evidence, regulatory reviews, and emerging international experience suggest that independent testing is essential before any PFAS-free claim can be considered credible.

The Problem With PFAS-Free Claims

PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment for extremely long periods and can accumulate in soil, waterways, wildlife and the human body.

Thousands of PFAS compounds exist. Scientists and regulators continue to identify new forms and pathways of contamination.

Many synthetic turf manufacturers now market products as:

• PFAS-free
• Fluorine-free
• Non-detect for PFAS
• Free from intentionally added PFAS

While these claims may sound reassuring, they often rely on testing methods that only screen for a relatively small number of known PFAS compounds.

A product can return a “non-detect” result for a limited list of PFAS chemicals while still containing fluorinated compounds or fluoropolymers that fall within broader PFAS definitions adopted by regulators and scientists.

This distinction is critical.

What the Research Shows

Recent international studies have raised significant concerns about PFAS and fluorinated compounds in synthetic turf systems.

Researchers from Stockholm University found fluorine in every artificial turf sample tested, including turf fibres, backing materials and infill components.

Government agencies in the United States, including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, have subsequently reviewed the evidence and acknowledged that fluorinated compounds appear to be widespread in synthetic turf products.

Importantly, these agencies also highlighted major uncertainties regarding long-term environmental behaviour, weathering, disposal and recycling.

The debate is no longer simply about whether a small number of PFAS chemicals can be detected.

The key question is whether fluorinated materials are present at all.

Why Total Organic Fluorine Testing Matters

The most objective way to assess this issue is through Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) testing.

TOF testing does not focus on a narrow list of known PFAS compounds.

Instead, it measures the total amount of organically bound fluorine present within a material.

This provides a much broader assessment of whether fluorinated substances are present.

If TOF testing identifies significant fluorine levels within synthetic turf fibres, backing or infill, it raises legitimate questions about claims that a product is completely PFAS-free.

Increasingly, independent scientists and environmental advocates argue that TOF testing should become the benchmark assessment method for evaluating synthetic turf products.

Independent Testing Is Essential

One of the most important lessons from the global PFAS experience is that manufacturer assurances have not always proven reliable.

Australia is currently witnessing unprecedented legal action against multinational chemical giant 3M over historical PFAS contamination associated with firefighting foams.

The Commonwealth alleges that important information regarding environmental risks was not adequately disclosed and is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

This case serves as a reminder that communities should approach industry assurances carefully and insist upon independent verification.

The stakes are simply too high.

Once PFAS enters the environment, remediation can cost millions of dollars and may continue for decades.

The Good News: Testing Is Readily Available

Fortunately, independent TOF testing is available in Australia.

The National Measurement Institute (NMI), located at North Ryde in Sydney, has the capability to undertake Total Organic Fluorine analysis.

Importantly, this testing can be performed at relatively low cost compared with the millions of dollars often spent on synthetic turf installations.

Given that many proposed synthetic turf projects now exceed $5 million, $10 million or even $20 million, independent fluorine testing represents a very small investment to provide objective evidence regarding product composition.

A Sensible Precautionary Approach

Communities, councils, schools and sporting organisations should adopt a simple principle:

If a manufacturer claims a product is PFAS-free, that claim should be independently verified.

The burden should not fall on residents, parents or environmental groups to prove contamination after installation. Instead, objective testing should occur before procurement decisions are made. Independent TOF testing offers a practical, affordable and scientifically credible way to assess these claims.

In an era where governments around the world are tightening PFAS regulations and recognising the long-term costs of contamination, relying solely on marketing material is no longer sufficient.

When it comes to PFAS, trust is not enough.

Verification matters.

Key References

1. Lauria et al. (2022) — Widespread Occurrence of Non-Extractable Fluorine in Artificial Turf
One of the most important peer-reviewed studies examining fluorinated compounds in synthetic turf.
URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00260

2. Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: Toxicity Studies, Challenges and Future Directions
Comprehensive review of health and environmental concerns associated with artificial turf, including PFAS and microplastics.
URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10262297/

3. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) — PFAS in Artificial Turf Memo
Government review of PFAS concerns associated with artificial turf systems.
URL: https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/dsr/pfas-artificial-turf-memo-2023.pdf

4. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) — Technical Document for Artificial Turf Containing PFAS
Technical review examining PFAS risks, testing limitations and regulatory concerns.
URL: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2026/02/TechnicalDocument_PFASs-in-Artificial-Turf_accessible.pdf

5. Independent PFAS Testing of Cornell Synthetic Turf
Independent review of PFAS testing associated with synthetic turf marketed as PFAS-free.
URL: https://zerowasteithaca.org/independent-pfas-testing-of-cornell-synthetic-turf/

6. Toxic Forever Chemicals Infest Artificial Turf
Analysis of PFAS and fluorinated compounds identified in artificial turf products.
URL: https://www.ecocenter.org/toxic-forever-chemicals-infest-artificial-turf

7. False Artificial Turf Recycling Claims Ripped
Discussion of concerns regarding environmental marketing claims made by sections of the synthetic turf industry.
URL: https://peer.org/false-artificial-turf-recycling-claims-ripped/

8. PFAS Information Hub
Australian Government information on PFAS, regulatory responses and environmental concerns.
URL: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/chemicals-management/pfas

9. Australia Sues 3M Over PFAS Contamination
Article discussing major legal action associated with PFAS contamination and alleged failures to disclose risks.
URL: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/28/australia-sues-3m-record-breaking-sum-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-firefighting-foam

10. National Measurement Institute (NMI)
Australia’s national measurement authority with capability to undertake fluorine-related analytical testing, including techniques relevant to PFAS investigations.
URL: https://www.industry.gov.au/national-measurement-institute

On 21 May 2026, Lane Cove Council took a significant step in the growing debate over synthetic turf, voting to begin development of a new Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces Policy and investigate planning controls for synthetic turf in new residential developments.

The decision reflects increasing concern within councils and communities about the long-term environmental, health and climate impacts associated with synthetic turf.

Importantly, the proposed policy does not impose an outright ban on synthetic turf. Instead, it establishes a clear preference for best-practice natural turf and other organic solutions within public open space, while recognising synthetic turf may still be considered where no viable alternative exists.

Under the proposed framework:

• significant synthetic turf projects would require approval by elected councillors;
• projects must comply with NSW Government synthetic turf assessment guidelines;
• communities must be consulted on environmental and public health mitigation measures; and
• councils must consider ethical and sustainable disposal of synthetic turf at end of life.

Perhaps most notably, Council also resolved to investigate whether development controls could be introduced to restrict or prevent synthetic turf in new private developments and residential landscaping.

That represents a major shift in how councils are beginning to view synthetic turf — not simply as a sporting infrastructure issue, but as a broader urban planning, environmental and climate resilience issue.

The report supporting the motion was extensive and unusually direct in outlining the concerns associated with synthetic turf.

Among the key issues identified were:

• PFAS and PFOA contamination risks;
• microplastic pollution entering waterways;
• increased urban heat;
• loss of biodiversity and soil health;
• permeability and drainage impacts;
• recycling and disposal challenges; and
• potential health impacts including skin injuries and bacterial infection risks.

The report also highlighted that synthetic turf surfaces can reach extreme temperatures during summer.

Research referenced from Western Sydney University found synthetic turf surfaces can exceed 80°C in direct sunlight even when air temperatures are around 28°C, compared to just above 30°C for natural turf under similar conditions.

The report further noted that synthetic surfaces can contribute to urban heat island effects and may become increasingly difficult to use safely during hotter summers.

Concerns around PFAS were also discussed in considerable detail.

The report noted that PFAS chemicals — often referred to as “forever chemicals” — have been linked to cancer, thyroid issues, liver problems, immune system impacts and other serious health concerns. It referenced overseas studies suggesting players can absorb PFAS chemicals through skin contact on synthetic fields and highlighted recommendations from the recent Australian parliamentary inquiry into PFAS contamination.

Importantly, the Lane Cove report also challenged the idea that increasing sporting capacity automatically requires synthetic turf.

Council pointed to examples such as Mosman Council, where investment in upgraded natural turf systems and drainage improvements has significantly increased field capacity without replacing fields with plastic surfaces.

The debate occurring in Lane Cove mirrors a much broader shift now taking place across Australia.

Increasingly, councils are moving away from treating synthetic turf as the default “high-capacity” solution and are instead demanding stronger evidence, more transparent assessment and greater scrutiny of long-term environmental and public health impacts.

What is becoming clear is that communities no longer see this as simply a debate about sport.

It is increasingly a debate about climate resilience, urban heat, biodiversity, plastics, public health and the future character of public open space itself.

For more information, click here

In a landmark decision that reflects growing community and environmental concern across Australia, Byron Shire Council voted on 21 May 2026 to formally prioritise natural turf over synthetic turf in public open spaces.

The adopted motion recognises synthetic turf as a “high-impact material” and restricts its use to circumstances where natural alternatives are demonstrated to be unviable.

This is not simply a symbolic statement. It represents one of the clearest policy positions yet taken by an Australian council on the future of synthetic turf in public spaces.

The motion commits Council to a series of important principles, including:

• minimising heat-intensive materials in public open spaces;
• supporting cooling, soil health and biodiversity;
• applying the precautionary principle where credible environmental or health risks exist; and
• considering long-term waste and end-of-life impacts associated with artificial turf systems.

Importantly, Byron Shire Council confirmed that natural turf will now be treated as the preferred default surface for council-owned parks, sporting fields and landscaped areas. Any future synthetic turf proposal must be reported to Council and demonstrate why natural alternatives are not viable.

The motion also requires future proposals to address:

• heat impacts;
• hydrology and flooding risks;
• health considerations;
• end-of-life disposal; and
• consistency with Council’s climate and environmental objectives.

This decision reflects a much broader shift now occurring across New South Wales and internationally.

The background report supporting the motion acknowledged growing evidence and concern surrounding:

• PFAS and chemical exposure risks associated with crumb rubber infill;
• microplastic pollution;
• extreme surface temperatures on synthetic fields;
• urban heat island impacts;
• biodiversity loss;
• flood-related risks; and
• long-term waste management challenges.

The report specifically referenced NSW Government synthetic turf assessment guidelines, the NSW Chief Scientist review, and research highlighting that synthetic surfaces can reach temperatures capable of causing serious skin burns during hot weather.

Importantly, Council staff also acknowledged that advances in modern natural turf systems can improve field capacity through:

• better drainage;
• improved soil health;
• climate-resilient grass species;
• scheduling and rotation strategies; and
• improved construction and maintenance techniques.

Perhaps most significantly, Byron Shire Council’s report reframed the debate entirely.

Rather than asking how synthetic turf can be rolled out more quickly, the report asked a more important question:

How do councils create sporting and recreational spaces that remain environmentally responsible, climate-resilient and sustainable for future generations?

Council staff concluded that public open spaces should function as “living systems” that support biodiversity, cooling, water infiltration and community wellbeing — not simply as sealed plastic surfaces.

The motion also proposes investigating amendments to the Development Control Plan to discourage synthetic turf and plastic ground coverings in new developments where natural alternatives are viable.

For many communities watching similar debates unfold across Sydney and regional NSW, Byron Shire Council’s decision may prove highly influential.

It signals that councils are increasingly moving away from treating synthetic turf as the default “high-capacity” solution and are instead demanding stronger evidence, better environmental assessment and more rigorous long-term cost and risk analysis before replacing natural green space with plastic surfaces.

For further information, click here

At an extraordinary meeting of Ku-ring-gai Council on 18 May, councillors made a significant decision that could reshape the future of the controversial Norman Griffiths Oval upgrade project.

Rather than approving a further $7.8 million increase in project spending — taking the total estimated cost to $20.2 million — councillors voted to pause the current project and undertake a fresh review of all available options, including best-practice natural turf.

Importantly, Council itself acknowledged that:

“Spending $20.2 million is far in excess of Council’s initial budget for the Norman Griffiths field upgrade and that the community may have formed a different opinion on a synthetic upgrade versus a natural turf upgrade had they known the total potential project cost.”

That statement matters.

For years, many residents have argued that the community was never presented with a genuine side-by-side comparison of the true long-term costs, risks and alternatives associated with synthetic turf versus modern best-practice natural turf solutions.

Now, for the first time, Council will engage NSW Public Works or another suitably qualified independent expert to prepare an updated cost comparison between completing the project as a synthetic turf field; and delivering a best-practice natural turf field instead.

The report will include minimum and maximum construction cost estimates for both options and is scheduled to be presented to the August 2026 Council meeting.

Council will also undertake a new resident survey to better understand current community preferences regarding the future surface at Norman Griffiths Oval, with findings to be reported by October 2026.

In another important development, Council staff will also investigate the estimated cost of upgrading two additional sporting fields using best-practice natural turf to help spread sporting demand across multiple sites. Staff will recommend the most suitable ovals for consideration, with this report also due in August.

This is a major shift in direction — and ultimately, a victory for common sense.

At a projected cost of more than $20 million — and potentially much higher once future remediation, replacement and maintenance costs are considered — it is entirely reasonable for councillors and the community to pause and ask a simple question:

Is this still the best option for Ku-ring-gai ratepayers?

The reality is that the conversation around synthetic turf has changed dramatically in recent years.

Communities across Sydney are increasingly raising concerns about:

• escalating project costs;
• PFAS and fluorinated compounds associated with some synthetic turf systems;
• microplastic pollution entering waterways;
• extreme surface heat during summer; and
• the loss of natural green open space.

At the same time, advances in best-practice natural turf management are challenging old assumptions about field capacity and durability.

The decision by Council does not “kill” the project. What it does do is restore something that many residents felt had been missing for a long time — independent scrutiny, updated evidence and genuine comparison of all available options before another major financial commitment is made.

For many in the community, that is exactly what good governance should look like.

For further information, click here

One of the most common arguments used to justify the installation of synthetic sports fields is that they provide significantly greater playing capacity than natural turf.

At first glance, this sounds logical. Synthetic fields can be used in wet weather, require less recovery time between matches and can generally withstand heavier use than poorly maintained natural grass fields.

However, the capacity debate is often oversimplified.

The real question is not whether synthetic turf can be used for more hours. The question is whether communities are accurately measuring sporting capacity and whether synthetic turf is the most appropriate and cost-effective way to meet demand.

The Problem with Measuring Capacity by Hours

Many council reports compare natural and synthetic fields based on the number of hours each can be booked.

A typical comparison might suggest:

• Natural turf: 30–40 hours per week
• Synthetic turf: 60–70 hours per week

This comparison immediately creates the impression that synthetic turf offers twice the capacity of natural grass.

The problem is that these figures often compare a poorly maintained natural field with a synthetic field operating under ideal conditions. It is not an “apples with apples” comparison. Independent sports turf experts have repeatedly pointed out that well-designed and properly maintained natural turf fields can accommodate substantially more use than many council reports suggest.

Best Practice Natural Turf Can Deliver Much More

Sports turf consultant Mick Battam of AgEnviro has argued that many capacity assessments underestimate the performance of modern natural turf systems.

Through improved drainage, irrigation, turf selection and maintenance practices, natural fields can often support between 45 and 50 hours of organised sport per week while maintaining acceptable playing conditions. This is significantly higher than the 30 hour figure commonly quoted in planning documents.

The implication is important. If a community’s demand is 45 or 50 hours per week, a well-designed natural turf field will be  capable of meeting that demand without the need for a synthetic conversion.

Booked Hours Are Not the Same as Actual Use

Another challenge is that many capacity studies rely on booking data rather than actual field utilisation. Just because a sporting club books a field does not mean it is being actively used for the entire booking period.

Many councils allocate large blocks of time to clubs months in advance. These bookings may not reflect actual attendance, player numbers or field occupancy. As a result, booking schedules can overstate demand.

Communities deserve transparency regarding:

• Actual field utilisation
• Peak demand periods
• Seasonal demand patterns
• Number of participants using the facility
• Type of participants using the facility and their ‘wear’ factor
• Unused or cancelled bookings

Without this information it becomes difficult to determine whether additional capacity is genuinely required.

Carrying Capacity Matters More Than Hours

Perhaps the most important issue is that sporting capacity should not be measured solely in hours. Capacity is ultimately about how many participants can be accommodated. A field used by 30 players for two hours is very different from a field used by 200 players over the same period.

Sportsfield experts recommend measuring “carrying capacity” rather than simply counting booked hours.

Carrying capacity considers:

• Number of participants
• Type of sport
• Seasonal use
• Field condition
• Recovery requirements
• Maintenance practices

This approach provides a far more meaningful measure of community benefit.

The Hidden Assumption in Many Synthetic Turf Proposals

Many synthetic turf business cases assume that if a field can theoretically accommodate 70 hours per week, those hours will actually be used. In practice, this assumption is often questionable.

Many synthetic fields never achieve their theoretical capacity. Demand may be concentrated on weekday afternoons and weekends, leaving significant periods of unused availability. A field capable of accommodating 70 hours per week but only used for 45 hours does not provide any practical capacity advantage over a natural field capable of supporting similar demand.

This raises an important question for decision-makers: Are communities paying millions of dollars for capacity that may never be needed?

Capacity Must Be Balanced Against Other Factors

Capacity is only one factor in the decision-making process.

Councils must also consider:

• Capital costs
• Whole-of-life costs
• Environmental impacts
• Urban heat effects
• Microplastic pollution
• PFAS concerns
• Community preferences
• Biodiversity outcomes
• End-of-life disposal costs

A field that provides additional theoretical capacity may not necessarily provide the best overall outcome for the community.

Asking Better Questions

Before approving a synthetic turf project, councils should be able to answer several fundamental questions:

• What is the actual demand for field use?
• How much of the existing booked time is genuinely utilised?
• What capacity could be achieved through best-practice natural turf management?
• Has carrying capacity been assessed rather than simply booked hours?
• Is the additional synthetic capacity likely to be used?
• Have all costs and environmental impacts been fully considered?
• Is it important that the field is available for broad community use?

These questions are essential if communities are to make informed decisions.

Conclusion

The natural versus synthetic turf debate is often framed as a simple capacity issue. In reality, the situation is much more complex.

Well-managed natural turf can provide substantially greater capacity than many reports suggest. Capacity should be measured by actual participation and carrying capacity rather than theoretical booking hours alone. Most importantly, councils should demonstrate that any additional capacity provided by synthetic turf is genuinely required before committing millions of dollars to these projects.

The goal should not be to maximise theoretical hours of use. The goal should be to provide the greatest overall benefit to the community while balancing sporting needs, environmental impacts and long-term financial sustainability.

IF you’d like more information on the actual capacity requirements of your sportsfield, contact us directly

The City of Sydney has adopted a significantly more cautious and evidence-based approach towards future synthetic turf sports fields following a major policy review considered by Council in February 2026.

The review recognises that synthetic fields can help address growing pressure on sporting facilities across the city. Council noted that demand for sports field capacity is expected to increase substantially by 2030, with the City’s four existing synthetic fields already contributing around 11,000 additional playable hours annually.

However, the policy also highlights increasing environmental, health and urban planning concerns associated with synthetic turf. These include:

• urban heat impacts and unsafe surface temperatures during summer;
• microplastic pollution entering waterways;
• flood risks;
• biodiversity impacts;
• end-of-life disposal issues; and
• broader environmental concerns associated with synthetic materials.

Importantly, Council referenced updated NSW Government guidance released following the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer review into synthetic turf. The new guidance requires more rigorous environmental assessments, including:

• biodiversity impact assessments;
• heritage assessments;
• climate and urban heat analysis;
• waterway and flood risk assessments;
• microplastic mitigation measures; and
• end-of-life management plans.

The motion also acknowledged emerging evidence that well-designed and intensively maintained natural turf fields may achieve substantially greater playing capacity than previously assumed, while avoiding many of the environmental risks associated with synthetic surfaces. Council specifically referenced the Natural Turf Alliance case study involving Middle Head Oval.

Under the adopted position, future synthetic turf proposals will now only be considered on a case-by-case basis, supported by detailed environmental assessments and community consultation. Council also resolved that any future proposals — including the proposed Mandible Street Sports Precinct in Alexandria — must include direct comparisons between natural and synthetic turf options, including capital costs, maintenance costs and end-of-life impacts.

The decision reflects a broader shift occurring across several NSW councils, where updated scientific evidence, environmental concerns and evolving NSW Government guidance are leading to greater scrutiny of synthetic turf projects.

For further information, click here

A new report released by AUSMAP — Do We Have a Microplastic Problem in NSW Coastal Waterways? — provides further independent evidence that microplastics are now widespread across NSW coastal waterways.

Of particular relevance to Natural Turf Alliance members is page 27 of the report, which identifies synthetic grass as an emerging source of microplastics, particularly in urbanised catchments.

Key findings highlighted in the report include:

• Elevated concentrations of synthetic turf fragments (“blades”) were recorded at several NSW sites, with some samples recording up to 2,500 synthetic grass blades per square metre
  
• AUSMAP notes that the combination of local stormwater inputs, rainfall-driven mobilisation, and nearby synthetic turf installations likely contributes to both the variability and peak fragment loads observed

Importantly, the report highlights that once microplastic fragments enter waterways they are persistent and difficult to remove, accumulating in sediments and coastal environments.

This report reflects growing scientific recognition that plastic-based surfaces can act as a source of microplastics beyond their installation sites, particularly where stormwater pathways connect sportsfields, schools and parks to creeks, bays and beaches.

Why this matters:

• Coastal and estuarine systems act as accumulation zones for microplastics
• Source identification is critical for preventative planning and infrastructure decisions
• Local surface choices can have catchment-wide environmental impacts

We encourage members to review the report directly and reference page 27 and Table 2 when engaging with councils, regulators, sporting bodies and community stakeholders.

Natural Turf Alliance will continue to monitor emerging research and advocate for evidence-based, precautionary approaches that protect waterways, community spaces and public health. 👉 Read the full report

Hundreds of NSW public schools have synthetic turf on their grounds, it has been revealed, amid concerns about the hot surface’s impact on children’s health and its environmental risks.

A Department of Education survey of 1600 of the state’s 2200 public schools conducted late last year found 58 per cent had synthetic turf.

It is the first time the department has revealed how many schools have the controversial play surface installed.

The material is promoted as a lower maintenance alternative to grass, but public backlash against synthetic turf and rubber crumb is growing due to evidence about damage to human health and the environment from its plastic, which can heat to extreme temperatures and leach forever chemicals and microplastics into waterways.

“The synthetic turf has been installed at these schools over many years with extents ranging from a few square metres up to full-size soccer fields,” a department spokesman said. Two-thirds of synthetic turf detected was partially or fully shaded, he said.

“We are aware that air temperature above artificial turf has the potential to exceed a comfortable temperature and contributes to the urban heat island effect,” he said.

“The department works to reduce the heat island effect through shading of synthetic turf, turf infill choice, material choices and irrigation.”

Frustrated by the previous lack of data available, Sydney mum and co-founder of advocacy group the National Turf Alliance Catriona Carver took matters into her own hands, spending two years cross-referencing satellite images with manufacturers’ websites, P&C announcements and school newsletters to estimate the number of schools with synthetic turf in Greater Sydney.

She concluded that at least one-third had the surface, including 150 schools in category 1 and 2 bushfire risk zones. Synthetic turf is a known bushfire hazard.

On a hot day, astroturf can reach up to 75 degrees. That’s only the start of its problems

A 2023 report by the NSW chief scientist and engineer recommended against synthetic sports fields in areas of high bushfire and extreme flood risk.

The same report also found the plastic grass contained biological pathogens and toxic chemicals, and presented a risk of microplastic ingestion.

“[Synthetic turf] has some benefits to play, but it’s got too many negatives for long-term health for children, and too much is unknown,” Carver said.

A CSIRO and UNSW report found synthetic turf contained toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that could be absorbed by the human body through direct contact, inhalation and ingestion.

According to the report, while research generally indicates that typical users of synthetic turf fields experience low health risks, ongoing studies are needed to investigate potential long-term effects, particularly from prolonged exposure.

Carver said schools and P&Cs received no information about safety, or how long the surface would last.

“Schools are putting this in on an instant basis, without much information about what happens to it,” she said.

Professor Sebastian Pfautsch of Western Sydney University has been investigating heat and synthetic turf in schools and playgrounds since 2019.

Last summer, he helped lead a research project with close to 1000 western Sydney school students, measuring temperatures in their schools and developing strategies to combat heat.

Pfautsch described synthetic turf as “the hottest material you will find in schools”. A NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure report found the material frequently reached temperatures of up to 75 degrees, compared to 37 degrees for natural grass, in western Sydney.

According to Pfautsch, radiant heat from the surface also heats up the walls of nearby classrooms.

“That, of course, means classroom temperatures go up, which means you need more air-conditioning,” Pfautsch said.

At Granville Boys High School, where grounds are mostly asphalt and synthetic turf, temperatures reached 48.2 degrees, “likely because it was in an enclosed space covered mostly by synthetic turf and surrounded by buildings which would heat up in the sun and radiate heat back into the surrounding air”, according to the project’s report.

Doonside Technology High School’s synthetic tennis courts reached 89.2 degrees on a 36-degree day; the ground was so hot that students “cooked an egg on it”.

Heat had negative consequences on not only health, but also learning outcomes, Pfautsch said.

“When you go for recess and your lunch break, and it’s very hot when you get back to the classroom, it takes much longer to find concentration again,” he said.

In a statement, a NSW School Infrastructure spokesman said the department used natural turf whenever possible and synthetic material was considered only in “high-use zones, shaded areas or other areas where the growth of natural turf is difficult, and in situations where it may be preferable to asphalt or concrete”.

He said the department regularly inspected synthetic turf in schools to ensure it remained fit for purpose, and feedback from schools was informing an update to its facilities standards this year.

The Department of Education spokesman confirmed that, when synthetic turf reaches the end of its useful life, a natural turf replacement “will be considered where possible”.

A separate issue is department schools relying on local synthetic turf facilities.

Ku-ring-gai Council is considering reverting the synthetic turf at Charles Bean Oval, which is used by Lindfield Learning Village for play, after lead, arsenic, zinc and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found in the material. The school has raised concerns about higher numbers of abrasions that require first aid, turf sticking to students’ shoes, and excessive heat.

Parent Julia Hobson said her kids were afraid to play on the field, conscious of its health impact.

“That’s unacceptable, that in a school environment, you’re having to make those decisions to avoid an area to make your kids feel safe,” she said.

Carver said the only way to fix hot synthetic turf was to remove it.

“Heat is the biggest thing that nobody can change. You either cover it all up, or you don’t have it. There’s no other way because you can’t do anything about it,” she said.

Published on 25^th January 2026 in the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/the-number-of-nsw-schools-with-synthetic-turf-revealed-20260115-p5nub0.html

The NSW Government has released its formal response to the NSW Government Select Committee on PFAS Contamination in Waterways and Drinking Water Supplies.

CLICK HERE to view the report and response

While synthetic turf fields are not specifically mentioned in the report, two major recommendations supported by the Government have significant implications for councils, schools, sporting groups and communities concerned about PFAS exposure from artificial playing surfaces.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are increasingly recognised as persistent environmental contaminants. Synthetic turf systems—fibres, backing, shock pads, adhesives and infill—are known to contain PFAS and shed PFAS-laden particulates into surrounding soil and waterways over their lifetime.

Below is a summary of the two most important recommendations and how they relate to synthetic playing fields.

🔍 Recommendation 27: Mandatory PFAS Labelling of Products

Government Position: Supported

The report recommends mandatory PFAS labelling for all consumer, commercial and industrial products, along with the creation of a national PFAS product register. The NSW Government has confirmed its support for this initiative and will advocate for national action.

Why this matters for synthetic turf

Although synthetic turf is not named in the report, this recommendation is highly relevant:

• Synthetic grass products contain PFAS, yet manufacturers are not required to disclose this.
• Mandatory labelling would finally reveal the level of PFAS in turf fibres, backing, shock pads, infill and adhesives.
• Councils and schools would be able to make fully informed decisions before installing new fields.
• Communities would gain transparency about PFAS-containing products being installed in local parks and sports facilities.

For organisations concerned about public health and environmental protection, this represents a major step forward.

⛔ Recommendation 28: Phase-Out of Non-Essential PFAS Uses by 2030

Government Position: Supported in Principle

The Committee recommends working through National Cabinet to phase out all non-essential PFAS uses by 2030. The NSW Government supports this direction and acknowledges the growing international push toward eliminating unnecessary PFAS applications.

Why this matters for synthetic turf

Synthetic turf is not an essential use of PFAS. If this national phase-out proceeds:

• PFAS-containing artificial turf systems could become ineligible for manufacture, import or use.
• Councils installing synthetic fields today may face significant future compliance, remediation and disposal liabilities.
• Natural turf and genuine PFAS-free alternatives (which do not currently exist at scale) will become the only long-term sustainable options.

This recommendation strongly reinforces the Natural Turf Alliance’s long-standing position that installing PFAS-based synthetic fields is incompatible with emerging public health and environmental policy.

🌿 What This Means for Councils and Communities

These two government-endorsed actions—mandatory PFAS labelling and the national phase-out of non-essential PFAS uses—represent substantial shifts in how PFAS risks are managed across Australia.

Together, they highlight a clear policy trajectory:

⚠️ Synthetic turf is likely to face increasing regulatory scrutiny, transparency requirements and eventual phase-out due to PFAS content.

Choosing natural turf is not only safer for communities and the environment—it is also more aligned with the future regulatory landscape.

📣 The Natural Turf Alliance Will Continue to Advocate

We will use this momentum to:

• push for transparency in PFAS-containing products used in public spaces,
• support councils in assessing long-term environmental risks,
• encourage evidence-based decision making on field construction, and
• promote natural turf as the safe, sustainable alternative for community sport.